September 15, 2012

The Muhammad Movie, the Embassy Attack and the Hegelian Dialectic

Kim Sengupta of the UK Independent has outlined that "the U. S. was warned about the embassy attack in Libya but did nothing." He wrote that "senior diplomatic sources" had known 48 hours before the attack. The mainstream media is blaming a YouTube video for the outrage and violence surrounding the attack. But are there deeper underlying causes? Melissa Melton and Paul Joseph Watson have outlined some of the questions regarding the various film versions and what they imply.

1. The alleged film maker claims that the movie was funded by rich Jewish donors to the tune of $5 million dollars, yet, it has all the quality of a low budget film school project.

2. Director Sam Bacile told the Associated Press this week that he was a 56-year-old "Israeli Jew" who lives in California. However, he told actors on set that he is Egyptian, while others have claimed he is an American.

3. Numerous authorities have failed to locate a 'Sam Bacile' residing in California. Bacile is likely a pseudonym for the only real person who has been positively connected with the movie -- Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian living in California who was convicted for federal bank fraud in 2010.4. The US supports terrorist networks, such as al-Quada and branches of The Muslim Brotherhood, as a form of situational ethics when such terrorists seem to support the present US agenda. For decades, the US supported al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, Syria, Iran and around the world. As Washingotn's blog outlines, "The violence taking place today in Sudan, Libya, and elsewhere is being carried out by the same boneheads we’ve supported."

5. The US has vowed 'justice' for the consult attack in libya. Sound familiar? Go back to George Bush's post 9/11 speeches. Bush vowed justice, however, what does justice mean today? There was no justice regarding George Bush's multiple war crimes and illegalities. Actually, in August 2012, a carte blanche pardon was given to Bush by President Obama.

6. Melissa Melton also mentioned the Hegelian dialectic. The Hegelian dialectic has been used in politics as a method of scripting opposing events in order to achieve a desired outcome. In accordance with the dialectic, Islam is basically being used to create a global police state. The underlying "logic" of the Hegelian dialectic is a bit difficult to grasp because of the relativism involved. Cassandra Goldman has written an excellent article describing how this technique is used by both educators and politicians today in our postmodern society. While many Christians give lip service to moral absolutism, many also unwittingly follow along and support the dialectical program that has been influencing society to a great extent. The dialectical approach, in the form of cultural Marxism, was used in the Soviet Union to create a culture of fear in order to arrange a consensus and quash descent. It seems this approach may also have ultimately been behind the 9/11/01 attacks as well. The 9/11 attacks against the US were used as the main rallying point for supporting the US invasion of Iraq. Similar to the warnings of attacks on the Libyan embassy, high US officials were forewarned of terrorist suicide missions against civilian targets in the US in 2001. Yet, there were no preemptive defense measures taken by the US at the highest level. On the contrary, it seems every possible measure was taken to ensure that the attacks could occur and be successfully bloody. No serious investigation has been taken in order to discern the truth.

According to quotes in History Commons, numerous foreign governments warned the White House that terrorists were planning to use hijacked passenger planes as weapons. And at least a decade before the 9/11 attacks, US intelligence had been warning of the same thing. According to the records, this has all been well documented, "But the panel was not allowed to mention this in its published report." A new book out Kurt Eichenwald documents how Osama bin Laden was named as one who would attempt such an attack, much earlier than the White House had claimed. We see a series of false claims surrounding 9/11 and the Iraq war.

The claim that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq was found to be a fraudulent one. In hindsight we see the likes of Dick Cheney and his Halliburton with billions in profits and we also see the rise of a global police state. The rise of a global world government happens to be the goal of many highly influential people. There is no excuse for terrorism and there is also no excuse for those who would use terrorists to help meet their own agenda.

Fast forward to today. People are tired of the expensive and endless US engagements in the Middle East. One US soldier dies every day or day and a half in Afghanistan. The only ones profiting are the military industrial complex and those on the inside. Saman Mohammadi points out, "Both sides in the conflict are controlled by the same financial interests that have created the conditions for permanent war between the West and the Muslim world." The average person, who is tired of expensive preemptive and endless wars, will require a new impetus to support a new war with Iran. And now we have one.

The irony is that these Middle East wars have been presented as "wars for freedom" when, in reality, the end result is a society where the practice of torture and the establishment of a police state are now considered acceptable and normal by the average person in the West.

Anthony Sutton wrote an article outlining the Hegelian dialectic in modern-day American politics. He shows how there really isn't much of a choice between the typical democratic and republican representatives who make it to the final stage of the election process. Both US front runners typically have the same underlying globalist agendas and both typically support the military industrial complex. On a much wider scale, the there is a Hegelian synthesis being sought today by many called the New World Order. This world government won't simply come about through random chance events, but through manipulation and controlled conflicts. If you are familiar with the specifics of End Times Bible prophecy, you will probably realize that it's just a matter of time until the coming world government system is in place. Though inevitable, we don't have to support the ideology and out-workings of this system. Rather, as Christians, we should be able to speak truth to power, no matter how corrupt and threatening that power may be.Note: A commenter at my blog asked why I would bother to write on this subject. It's quite simple: It seems we are headed towards WWIII and it would be nice to know the most probable reasons why. Contrary to US mainstream news sources and stories, the Libyan president has declared that ‘foreigners’ were responsible for the embassy attack. If and when the US does strike Iran, it seems both China and Russia would jump in, escalatingthe conflict to world war levels. Russia has been defending its Iranian nuclear plant ahead of its launch. And Putin has told his army to "Keep the powered dry." - in other words, be ready for battle at any moment.China has been opposed to sanctions against Iran and sees Iran as an important ally for oil. Both Russia and China are supporting the future hard-backed currency and, "China and Russia, have already made it quite clear that any intervention by the US in regions they themselves consider strategic, such as the Senkaku Islands, Syria and/or Iran, will result in retaliation." Tags: Mohammad movie scandal, Innocence of Muslims, Iran blamed for Libyan embassy attack, Does US support al-Quada? US knew of Libyan embassy attack, US forewarned of Libyan embassy attacks and did nothing, Hegelian dialectic in politics, Bush knew of airliners being used as weapons, Bush knew Osama bin Laden was planning an attack, quote by Kim Sengupta, cultural Marxism, culture of fear, moral relativism and the Hegelian dialectic, postmodernism and the Hegelian dialectic, New World Order and the Hegelian dialectic, End Times prophecy, Christians speak truth to power, Russia ready for war, China ready for war, is WWIII close?Related:

14 comments:

I am impressed; both with the level of conspiracy theory belief you evince, and with the level of grasping for intellectual respectability you display by citing "The Hegelian Dialectic" in your title without actually working it into your article save through a single, unexplained, reference.

You seem intent on painting all U.S. Presidents as identical; given your willingness to split hairs elsewhere this seems rather ludicrous.

To pick an example totally at non-random; Obama said he would work *with* the Libyans to catch those who attacked the embassy -- this is not a parallel to 9/11 at all, where the *overthrow*of governments became the immediate target.

On the contrary, it seems every possible measure was taken to ensure that the attacks could occur and be successfully bloody.

You need a citation for this casual accusation of treason you're tossing out. It's one thing to go "They didn't treat it seriously" and another to say, as you are here, that they deliberately aided and abetted the attacks.

I happen to also think that George W. Bush is a traitor, but not because of 9/11 -- because of his actions around the Iraq War. (It is worth noting here that the main non-conspiratorial claim about GWB's negligence around 9/11 was that he was too busy trying to figure out how to go to war with Iraq -- that was the pre-established plan. We do not have similar evidence of a war with Iran being in Obama's plans.)

And so, what is your claim here for Hegelian dialectic? The thesis of the state, combined with the antithesis of terrorism, becomes the synthesis of dictatorship? Rather vague and undersupported, don't you think? (And if that's not your synthesis, your attempts to communicate it are unclear.)

I do thank you, however, for at least not claiming that your vague insinuations and attempts at leading questions here are "logical" statements. ;)

Because I have posted a new article before addressing Imnotandrei's recent comments, he has apparently jumped to the conclusion that I may agree with his false assessments and views. Considering his recent behavior Imnotandrei should be content if I address his comments at all at any time. Many bloggers will discontinue a discourse after a commenter continues along the lines of slander. After a prolonged game of cat and mouse, Imnotandrei finally admitted September 10 to just that:

The following is a brief outline of some of the time wasted on dealing with Imnotandrei's false slander:

On August 28, Imnotandrei, claimed my article, 'Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like the Plague" was discredited. When asked to provide at least one actual cogent comment to support his claim, he stated,

"Nompe. Not doing any more for you until you start dealing with the 6 points I made before, Rick."In complying with his request, I addressed all of Imnotandrei's points and informed him of this on 09/01/12. Imnotandrei again refused to offer any quotes or links to back up his claim, but stated,"I have backed it up (his supposed refutation) -- that you are unable to go back and read does not make my evidence invalid."

1. Imnotandrei claimed on August 28th that my article had been discredited (past tense).

2. In order to prove my article had been discredited, Imnotandrei must show that a key point or statement had been posted before his claim was made.

3. Imnotandrei has not posted any key point or statement that was made prior to August 28th that could be considered a discrediting comment.

4. Therefore, Imnotandrei's comment on August 28th that my article had been discredited is false.

Only then, on September 10, did Imnotandrei finally admit that his slanderous claim was a false one. If Inotandrei desires a discourse, he should first probably begin by apologizing for his slander. Then he should discontinue his continuous habit of unjustified slander, then he should perhaps be a bit less arrogant in attempting to arrange other people's blogging priorities.

I've addressed your question as a final note in the above article. The related links are in the article itself:

Note: A commenter at my blog asked why I would bother to write on this subject. It's quite simple: It seems we are headed towards WWIII and it would be nice to know the most probable reasons why. Contrary to US mainstream news sources and stories, the Libyan president has declared that ‘foreigners’ were responsible for the embassy attack. If and when the US does strike Iran, it seems both China and Russia would jump in, escalating the conflict to world war levels. Russia has been defending its Iranian nuclear plant ahead of its launch. And China has been opposed to sanctions against Iran and sees Iran as an important ally for oil.

As someone who studies International Relations, I can say that there will be no war in Iran (too much to lose, too little to gain). The same reason why there will be no direct intervention in Syria.

And even if for some weird tragedy a war did start - no one is going to begin a nuclear conflict for such a reason. At most one could expect in that impossible scenario - diplomatic protests, indirect help from military advisors and delivery of conventional weapons.

>And even if for some weird tragedy a war did start - no one is going to begin a nuclear conflict for such a reason.

- I never mentioned a nuclear conflict.

>At most one could expect in that impossible scenario

- That's an illogical statement.

Look, Putin just met with his military peeps today and told them to "keep the powder dry." That's slang for, "Get ready to engage in a conflict at any minute."

You can believe whatever you want to. But, I don't believe Putin is out to play games. http://russia.1hnews.com/latest/assessing-the-international-situation-putin-urged-the-military-to-keep-their-powder-dry/

...the likelihood is that a war will neither be "regional" nor "contained" as both countries that make up the axis of a future hard-backed currency, China and Russia, have already made it quite clear that any intervention by the US in regions they themselves consider strategic, such as the Senkaku Islands, Syria and/or Iran, will result in retaliation.

"It seems we are headed towards WWIII and it would be nice to know the most probable reasons why"

A WWIII will enevitably be a nuclear conflict.

R:Look, Putin just met with his military peeps today and told them to "keep the powder dry." That's slang for, "Get ready to engage in a conflict at any minute."

If you think that the russian military can compete with the US, you are deeply mistaken. Be it budget wise (most of it is being stolen one way or another), number wise or ideologically.

R:"An armada of US and British naval power is massing in the Persian Gulf...

A high military consentration of troops does not mean a conflict is iminent.

R:China and Russia, have already made it quite clear that any intervention by the US in regions they themselves consider strategic, such as the Senkaku Islands, Syria and/or Iran, will result in retaliation.

Do understand the difference between a statemant that can be followed up and cannot be followed up